This may come as a shock to you, but we are media addicts here at LH. So when something as historic as two Supreme Court hearings about same sex marriage hits the internet we tend to read an unhealthy amount of articles. Here’s just a few from our culturally biased, although morally justifiable perspective. Followed by the fearful reactions of those opposing SSM.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Wouldn’t it be great if there were only one dictionary? You could make it available online and everybody could agree on the definitions of words. Sure, new things are invented every now and then but the advertising agencies of the world can just use the words we have with literal meanings for their products. Honestly, do we need to call a book reading machine a Kindle?

3. to excite; stir up or setgoing; animate; rouse; inflame: He kindled their hopes of victory.

4. to light up, illuminate, or make bright:Happinesskindledhereyes.

I see no valid reason for people to have to endure the redefinition of the word kindle just to please a minority of the population who don’t want to read books written on paper. What is wrong with the traditional meaning of the word? Now, when I want to start a fire I have to use a different word or people wont know that I am starting a fire in the traditional sense. How am I supposed to teach my children the subtle art of igniting combustible matter now that I have to explain that other people use the terminology for their own sinister ends.

This is an over-elaborate point but I feel the need to make it because the “re-definition of marriage” is the singular secular argument against same-sex marriage that is not rooted in religious ideology or erroneous (if not blatantly falsifiable) scientific research.

This is the only argument that an intellectually honest group or individual can make to entreat a secular government to make a decision based on the civil rights of its own citizens.

I understand that the majority of religious people believe that marriage is a contract before God and their families that they have chosen one person with whom to spend the rest of their life. I don’t need to believe in a God to understand that. But the Supreme Court is not making a decision about God, they are making a decision about law. Marriage has always been a social contract. It evolved into a legal contract and remains so in every culture that has legal contracts. I was married in on the beach in Mexico ten years ago. Actually, I was married in Quintano Roo in a little office when I signed the contract in front of the official. A priest performed our ceremony later that day. Steve was there, warding off Europeans in Speedos (thanks bro). The priest did not seem to care that it was an interracial marriage but we would not have forced him to perform the ceremony if he objected, citing the Curse of Ham.

I have not read every article on the subject, but I have never heard of an LGBT couple expressing a desire to force a church to officiate their wedding. I can’t imagine gaining any satisfaction from having the happiest day of your life officiated by someone who is about to vomit all over your “sinful union.” This is not about the religious liberties of the majority. This is about the human and civil rights of a minority. Freedom does not mean that your offense is my responsibility. It does not permit one group to have ultimate authority over the lexicon. The definition of a word has nothing to do with the civil rights of two adults who wish to have the same legal rights as everyone else. And by “civil rights” I mean:

civil rights

rightstopersonalliberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S.constitution and certain Congressional acts, especially as applied to an individual or a minority group.

We don’t need to re-define those words. Does it really matter if we change another definition? In 2006 we changed the meaning of the word “planet” and western civilization has continued, unfazed. What we are really redefining is the ability of a few vocal groups of people to site their religious beliefs and their personal sexual preferences as the basis of law for the whole country.

The Supreme Court may not make same-sex marriage legal this year. But they will eventually, and America will look the same the next day. God will be as silent on this issue as he is on every other. This vote is about people in modern society. Modern culture. Modern families. This vote will be the pride or the embarrassment of our children. This will validate the families of millions of children who are already being raised by same sex parents. This will validate the parenting of millions of “traditional families” who are raising their children to live without hate. The true majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, but that is not what makes it the moral choice. The morality is inherent in the word “equality.” Look it up.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Jack is out of town so this week is our first ever Left Hemispheres Podcast clip show! This episode is full of some of our favorite segments from previous shows, as well as a whole slew of unaired gaffs, guffaws, one liners, and outtakes.
As always please direct questions, comments, suggestions, or discussion via email at lefthemispheres@gmail.com. Of course you can also find us on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter @lefthemispheres.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

John Murray is a moderator for the Pittsburgh Atheists group on Facebook, and active in a number of regional and national freethought, skeptic, and atheist organizations.

I made the trip to Philly to see
Dr. Dawkins because: 1) I managed to a get a free ticket, 2) It was SUPPOSED to
be the "Philomathean Society Annual
Oration 2013: Dr. Richard Dawkins - "Proof, Science, and Skepticism: The
Magic of Reality" lecture. 3) I managed to get my life-long friends to
make the road trip, and 4) I may never have the chance to see Dr. Dawkins
again, since I rarely travel.

So. I had a wonderful road trip,
was treated,—at best— almost satisfactorily by the auditorium staff, met Dr.
Dawkins, and enjoyed the lecture. The event was a book tour that was
interrupted by a speaking engagement. I would think that getting an award that
had only been given to three people before—in the TWO HUNDRED YEARS of the
Society— would have been an event that Dr. Dawkins' handlers would have had on
their calendar. I surmise that I could be wrong. In effect, Dr. Dawkins adapted
his "book-tour lecture" to appease the audience. It was fine, just
not what I expected.

"Founded
in 1813, Philo is the oldest student group at the University and the oldest
continually existing collegiate literary society in the United States.
Throughout its nearly two hundred years of existence, the Society has pursued
its mission of learning outside the classroom in whatever ways struck its
membership best; a common answer to the question “what is Philo” is “whatever
Philos want it to be.”

http://www.philomathean.org/about/

Our host, Paul Mitchell the Oration Director,
introduced Dr. Dawkins, he was VERY helpful to me. I thank him. Please click
here to check out the Society's History.

My thoughts on the lecture:

"For the 2013 Bicentennial
Philomathean Annual Oration, Dr. Dawkins will address the audience on the
necessary role of science and skepticism in the modern world." That is what was SUPPOSED to happen. I was a
bit disappointed that the lecture was the 200th Anniversary of the Philomathean
Society's Annual Oration (the oldest in the United States) and that Dr. Dawkins
was given an award that has only been given to 3 others in the past 200 years.

Don't get me wrong; it was a
sound lecture that addressed science, skepticism and reality. However, I felt
that it should have been a lecture about "the necessary role of science
and skepticism in the modern world"; not a book-tour lecture. Dr. Dawkins made no
mention of what the original lecture was supposed to be; though later remarked
that he had been asked to speak about "proof". He admits that he
changed the book chapter that he usually refers to and went on to speak on
"Why Bad Things Happen" - a different chapter from "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True".

Dr. Dawkins made very good points
about disease, original sin, Sod's Law, and lucky charms. I liked what followed
about the "universe is not out to get you" and the "arms
race" between predators and prey (those of you familiar with his writing
will recognize this approach). He then reminded us of the importance of
parasites and vaccinations. That was followed by a refresher on our immune
systems and the fight against cancers. He posed the idea that a human's
auto-immune diseases may be the body's evolutionary "arms race"
against cancers. Just maybe, the immune system is ahead of the curve?

He then spoke about
"Mitochondrial Eve", "Y Chromosome Adam", and "our
most recent common ancestor". I agree, that there "had" to be
one of each of those. I also agreed with his reasoning: that there is a mass of
empirical evidence to back such scientific claims or as he put it - we never
have to leave the armchair to prove any of those things.

Finally, he went back to the
book-tour lecture and discussed why supernatural "miracles" are
nonsense. Science MUST keep looking for answers to things that we have yet to
grasp. Instead of pointing to the miraculous, we must admit that, "this is
something we don't yet understand."

"Science has its own magic: the
magic of reality." A fitting end to a very informative, however,
not-what-I-expected lecture.

The Q&A was a bit of
philosophical nonsense and a bit of confrontational sarcasm. The second
questioner was quite a bit over the top.

Over all, I very much enjoyed
seeing Dr. Dawkins in person. When I met him afterward, he was cordial, though
obviously had had a long day. I told him that reading "The Ancestor's
Tale" had enabled me to teach my mom about common ancestors and the like.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

I've written before about my time in the military, specifically about my experiences dealing with the very religious environment while I served. I didn't go into any great detail about my feelings on the war in Iraq, but now I will. Ten years ago today, I crossed the border from Kuwait to Iraq. Some days it has felt as if I never came back.

I was scheduled to go on a second CAX (Combined Arms eXercise) in 29 Palms, California; we all knew in the Fall of 2002 that it wasn't going to happen. We all knew we were going to Iraq.

9/11 had occurred at the end of my first CAX. We (the 2D Radio Bn detachment) were one of the last units left in the middle of that miserable hell one hour northeast of Palm Springs, CA. We slept in, turning on the radio around 8am Pacific to hear news that we had been attacked. The towers were already down. We knew that we were going to war. I wasn't involved in that war. Friends of mine were. That was a war that I could at least accept the reasons for. Not much more than a year later I knew I was going to be sent to a war that had no acceptable reasons.

I had never sought the council of a chaplain before. I had had no reason to. I'm not religious. I had messed around with some non-Abrahamic religions while I was in, but faith was always lacking. The problem is, in the military you have two options: you can see a chaplain, or you can see the wizard. The wizard is a psychologist or psychiatrist. Seeing the wizard carries a stigma, and a potentially career ending one if, like me, you have a top secret clearance. Seeing the chaplain does not carry such a stigma. So I went to see the Man. I explained my concerns, that there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, and that it didn't seem legal. I was told, "We just have to trust that God is working through the President."

"I don't believe in God," I say.

Blank stare and silence. I leave.

After forty days dealing with exploding toilets, boredom, and 3,500 other Marines and sailors miserable from the smallpox vaccine aboard the USS Saipan, I finally landed via LCU on a beach in Kuwait on February 18th, 2003. Trucked north in a sandstorm, I arrived in a tent city. I occupied my time cleaning the baby powder-fine sand from my weapon, reacting to gas drills, and taking cover from yet another sandstorm. It was amazing to me, years later watching "Jarhead", how little things had changed in the twelve years between Swofford's experience and mine.

On the 19th of March we convoyed to the berm. We sat for hours in our unarmored HMMWV, sandbags beneath our feet. We received warning order after warning order. Nobody seemed to know what was actually going on. In the wee hours of the night(or was it morning?) we received the order to move out. I switched on my CD player. "Rammstein" by the band of the same name. I had no idea how apropos it was. It was a long and winding path through the debris of that former war. The Iraqi armor fought among the burned-out hulls of the vehicles left by their fathers in an attempt to slow us down. For naught.

Jalibah Airfield. Patriots firing.

Villages and towns. Nasiriyah.

We were told that a deal had been made. The Iraqi commanders were going to have their troops lay down arms and go home. That's not at all what happened. Regulars and Fedayeen Saddam swarmed all over the city. They knew our technology gave us an advantage at night, so they attacked at dusk. Friendly fire resulted in casualties in the dozens. 2/8 Marines and LAR attacking each other, with Fedayeen in the middle. "Blue on blue!" was yelled out, and a cease fire given. It wouldn't be the last. The next day I saw the aftermath of a Marine Amtrac hit by an Air Force A-10. I still don't understand why the Air Force is allowed to use a ground support aircraft.

It was hard to stand on the banks of the Euphrates and not see my place in the long procession of history. I was yet another soldier, in yet another army, that had marched out of the dawn to conquer Mesopotamia. It was a feeling of both completeness and total loss.

I remember quite distinctly moving into a neighborhood in An Nasiriyah. The grunts had swept the area moments before us, pushing the inhabitants out. When my team moved into the house that we were to stay in for a few days , I saw the dead goslings. The goose was still alive, honking at at us that we weren't supposed to be there, while her children lay dead around the courtyard; crushed by boots moments before our arrival. We searched the house, finding wads of worthless Iraqi dinari and replacing them with American dollars out of pity. We stayed there several days, and had meetings with the local leaders. After two days or so, during one of these meetings, one of the Iraqis said, "We have been talking these days, and now I sit with you, and I forget that you are Americans." It was a moment that changed my life. It solidified my view of humanity as a whole. I saw that circumstance was trivial, and mutual experience was resounding. These Iraqis had forgotten not only that they were Arabs and Iraqis, but Muslims as well. Just so, we had forgotten our role as Americans and invaders. On that day I was called brother in a language I did not understand. It was on that day that I gained my humanity. It was on that day that I truly became an atheist. No god described by anyone has been able to explain that moment of connectivity I felt. Not with the Iraqis, nor the goose lamenting her goslings. Call this an appeal to emotion if you want, but remember this, in my time serving in an unjust war, in a foreign land, I connected with people I had never met as one human to another. There was no shared faith, but a shared understanding of sorrow and strife, and of the joys we discussed as we drank our tea and ate our bread. It was the daily struggle that we all make as denizens of this planet that allowed us to see each other for what we really are...companions swirling about each other in the endless game that we can only hope will end with all of us as winners.

As I continued through my time in Iraq, I saw the greetings for the liberators turn to the scorn for the conquerors. This, along with my experiences in Latin America fighting another war of evasive morals, led to a fundamental change in my outlook on how we have built our societies. It has led me to carry a banner, not of my own making, but made by the tireless cries of the oppressed.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

As always please direct questions, comments, suggestions, or discussion via email at lefthemispheres@gmail.com. Of course you can also find us onFacebook,Google+, and Twitter@lefthemispheres.Please subscribe to thepodcast via iTunes and consider rating us or check us out onLibsyn.

Friday, March 1, 2013

'Project 2026' to Fight the Gay-Muslim​-Atheist Alliance Destroying America Alex McFarland and Brian Fincher warn of the danger of “the four groups that are actively working to secularize and destroy America: humanists; atheists; militant homosexuals; and Muslims.” ~First, I have no idea what a militant homosexual is. I’m thinking they might be those people who kidnap heterosexuals in the middle of the night then return them to their homes in more fashionable clothing.

Arguably, the only shared characteristic these four groups have is that their existence scares the god-fearing shit out of people like Fincher and McFarland.